It has probably been said, but I do not see it so I have to say it. The worst case scenario is that the perennial fascination with anything nuclear will divert attention away from the already very real and enormous environmental catastrophe that this tsunami has caused.
Half a million people are homeless already (135,000 homeless due to Chernobyl). Death toll is in the thousands. There is much controversy over the death toll from Chernobyl, the WHO report predicting 9000 eventual fatalities has been criticized as under estimating. Deaths due to this Earthquake are in the thousands but data is sparse.
Sea water and debris containing everything imaginable has been spread over a huge area of land, much of it productive agricultural land. Erosion by the Tsunami was obviously ridiculous but there will be much more as normal processes act on the now stripped land. Creeks, rivers, and deltas have been erased. Factories, homes, fuel depots, chemical plants and every other product of modern industrial society has been pulverised and spread over who knows how many square kilometers of land. I have no idea the impact of such a thing on an ocean ecosystem but it is probably not insignificant.
I am not an expert in anything really but I am willing to bet that any possible scenario with these power plants will pale in comparison to the already existing overall disaster. The nuclear scenario piques interest, but not because of the significance of its actual impact.
Or you may have read any of the dozen other posters who have stressed the point the the shells of the containment buildings were blown up but not the containment dome and maybe not the shielding inside the domes. And I’m pretty sure every single news story has made this distinction as well. I can’t figure out how you could read any article and not come up with a cite for this.
I would assume “activated steam” is exactly that, various radioactive isotopes of oxygen and possibly some tritium being released as water. I’d be happy to be corrected, but that’s what I’d assume from the plain language.
I was against ignorant scaremongering before, I am against ignorant scaremongering now, I will be against ignorant scaremongering in the future. That’s a pretty good cause to get testy about.
Oh yeah, the “people not bothering to read the five threads currently running” theme makes me testy as well. What can I say? I’m just high-test.
This is an apple and oranges comparison. The earthquake and the tsunami were “acts of God” – or natural disasters. The nuclear problem is directly caused by people, by inadequate planning, and poor designs.
Uh…but I am actively reading and posting in those threads. And more to the point, my sentence “I thought I read somewhere that two of the hydrogen explosions breached reactor containment buildings but not containment vessels themselves, but I can’t cite that” turned out to be accurate according to an authority none other than you yourself, and isn’t scaremongering – I specify the containment vessels were not breached.
Furthermore, and this sounds like it might surprise you, I’m not ignorant. I have read extensively on this subject for years.
I don’t know exactly why you’re emotionally invested in demonizing people, especially in this case, after showing that you agree with my quoted claim.
Okay, I’d been reading rapidly and didn’t feel like an attempt to backtrack through everything I’d read would produce an exact citation quickly enough to be useful. Does that merit this kind of pissy behavior?
So were bridges that werent strong enough to stand the quake or tsunami, the buildings that werent, people not evacuating fast enough, people living in these dangerous places in the first place and on and on.
My guess is that way more people will have died due to less than perfectly safe everything else that God’s acts stomped on than will ever die from God stomping on the nuclear reactors.
I think that part of the problem is that contentious subjects tend to attract people who “read extensively on the subject for years” and consider themselves experts, but aren’t because most of what they have been reading is bollocks.
I don’t have enough knowledge of this area to comment, but I do have extensive knowledge of an entirely unrelated controversial topic, and I know that much of the popular information on the subject is so absolutely riddled with inaccuracy as to be useless to anyone.
Their is a subset of “activist” that believes making stuff up or wildly exaggerating is absolutely fine if you do it in support of a worthy cause. These people are hugely damaging to reasonable debate because they tend to damage the credibility of everyone’s arguments.
You end up with a mass of angry people who are impossible to engage with because so many of the “facts” that they know are absolute rubbish and any attempt to dissuade them of this is just taken as evidence of a massive conspiracy.
This isn’t to say that the stuff coming from industry is honest, but at least in the areas that I’m familiar with, it tends more to lies of omission and clever wording rather than just randomly making shit up.
The net result is that it’s near impossible for the laymen to learn anything about the subject from the critical viewpoint because they have no way of knowing which stuff is reliable.
From my entirely amateur viewpoint, their is now potentially a very serious issue regarding the spent fuel pools, that is now getting entirely lost in a lot of fussing about meltdowns by people who think “The China Syndrome” was a documentary. But it’s hard to know who to trust for information and the general standard of journalism around this issue has been absolutely shameful.
On preview, that post as far more personally directed at Sailboat than I intended. I am in no position to make any judgements about his (or her) knowledge of this issue, and I don’t particularly blame the people who do end up researching issue with tainted information sources.
Well, to be fair, Wilford Brimly is too busy doing die a beet eez commercials to give informative interviews to the media. And Jack Lemon is taking a big dirt nap.
Agreed, in the general sense. There’s also the issue of assertions of knowledge by anonymous people on the Internet.
Yeah, I’ve had some acquaintances with this viewpoint and it drives me nuts. I usually wind up cautioning them to stick to the facts where they are strong (in other words, I usually wind up marginalized and ignored.)
Apparently the damage at reactor 2 is to the containment vessel, not to the containment dome. One sits inside the other. This is not good news, but not quite the same thing as a breach of the dome.
Here’s an overview of the situation from the Asahi Shimbun.
They also have continual updates on their Facebook page.
Obviously this statement was removed from the “accurate” explanation:
Breaking News: Workers at Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant have suspended their operations and been evacuated, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Wednesday.
Take a look at this site: Japan Atomic Industrial Forum. Bear in mind that it appears to be an industry organ and may be subject to under-reporting the severity of the problem.
I direct your attention to .pdf 2011-03-17 Update 10:
Reactor Unit 3 is the subject of my interest. Specifically, it’s the only one showing “Containment Vessel Integrity: Damage Suspected” and “Building Integrity: Severely Damaged.” Either the building or the containment vessel would be enough to contain environmental release, but loss of both would be…bad.
There’s also the possibly relevant “Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity: Unknown,” if that’s different from the “Containment Vessel;” their terminology doesn’t exactly match what I’m used to. I don’t know which, if any, is a direct analog to the “containment dome” I’m used to hearing about that backs up the “containment vessel” itself.
I believe that they are using “containment vessel” to refer to the outer structure encasing the entire reactor assembly. The reactor pressure vessel is what contains the actual fuel, and I believe (IANA nuclear expert) that as long as the pressure vessel remains intact, there will not be a massive radiation leak. Perhaps one of our actual nuclear experts can correct me if I am wrong.
i think that the reactor vessels becoming damaged is possible if the fuel rods keep deteriorating. that hasn’t been ruled out by anybody yet from what i recall.
helicopter water drops are on reactors 3 and 4. they are getting high doses of radiation indicating those storage pools are dry.
“Considering the amount of radiation released in the area, the fuel rods are more likely to be exposed than to be covered,” Yuichi Sato, an official with Japan’s nuclear safety agency, said.
workers in the plant are likely getting cancer causing does of radiation at least. over the past few days i’ve heard they are looking for retirees to come and do the work. thought is they might die of some other cause before they die of cancer.